Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 3811

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office.

(e) Copies of the relative service

information may be obtained from The

Cessna Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 7706,

Wichita, Kansas 67277. Copies of this

document also may be inspected at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(f) This amendment (39–10292) becomes

effective on February 23, 1998, to all persons

except those persons to whom it was made

immediately effective by priority letter AD

98–01–14, issued December 30, 1997, which

contained the requirements of this

amendment.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January

20, 1998.

Carolanne L. Cabrini,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–1860 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

23 CFR Part 1260

[NHTSA–97–3196]

RIN 2125–AE17

Certification of Speed Limit

Enforcement

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) and National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA), Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Section 205(d) of the National

Highway System Designation Act of

1995 repealed the National Maximum

Speed Limit (NMSL) Compliance

Program. It made the repeal effective on

December 8, 1995, but provided that the

Governors of certain States could delay

the effective date of the repeal. All

possible delay periods have now passed.

This Final Rule provides that 23 CFR

part 1260, which contains the

procedures for implementing the NMSL,

is now rescinded.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In

FHWA, Janet Coleman, Office of

Highway Safety, 202–366–4668; or

Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of the Chief

Counsel, 202–366–1377. In NHTSA,

Garrett Morford, Police Traffic Services

Division, 202–366–9790; or Heidi L.

Coleman, Office of the Chief Counsel,

202–366–1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The 55 mph National Maximum

Speed Limit (NMSL) was first instituted

in 1974 as a temporary conservation

measure in response to the oil embargo

imposed by certain oil-producing

nations. Because of the reduction in

traffic fatalities that accompanied the

institution of the speed limit, it was

made permanent in 1975.

In 1978, Congress amended the law to

require that, in addition to posting and

enforcing the speed limit, States would

have to achieve specific levels of

compliance. In April 1987, Congress

passed legislation that allowed States to

post 65 mph maximum speed limits on

rural Interstate highways. In December

1987, the President approved legislation

enacting a limited demonstration

program, that allowed the posting of

speed limits as high as 65 mph on

certain rural non-Interstate highways

through the end of FY 1991.

The Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA) made the demonstration

program permanent, and allowed other

rural non-Interstate highways that were

not a part of the demonstration program

to be posted at the 65 mph speed limit,

provided they met certain criteria.

ISTEA also required the Secretary of

Transportation to publish a rule to

establish speed limit compliance

requirements on 65 mph roads, in

addition to 55 mph roads, and to

include a formula for determining

compliance by the States.

FHWA and NHTSA had shared

responsibility for the implementation of

the NMSL compliance program since

1980. To implement this program and

the requirements of ISTEA, the agencies

promulgated a joint regulation, 23 CFR

part 1260.

On November 28, 1995, the President

signed into law the National Highway

System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS

Act). Section 205(d) of the NHS Act

repealed the NMSL compliance

program, as set forth in 23 U.S.C.

§§ 141(a) and 154.

The NHS Act made the repeal

effective on December 8, 1995, but

provided some States with an option to

delay this effective date. In any State in

which the legislature was not in session

on November 28, 1995, the Governor

could declare, before December 8, 1995,

that the legislature was not in session

and that the State preferred to delay the

effective date until after the State’s

legislature next convenes. In accordance

with the NHS Act, such a declaration

would delay the effective date of the

repeal of the NMSL until the 60th day

following the date on which the

legislature next convenes. Five States

decided to exercise the option: Kansas,

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and

Ohio.

Accordingly, as provided in the NHS,

on December 8, 1995, the NMSL was

repealed for all States other than these

five States. In those five States, it

remained in effect until the 60th day

following the date on which the

legislature of that State next convened.

The agencies published a final rule in

the Federal Register on March 20, 1996,

61 FR 11305, which rescinded the

regulation for all States except the five

which had delayed the effective date

until after their legislatures next

convened. That final rule added an

applicability section to Part 1260

(section 1260.4), making the regulation

applicable only to those five States. In

addition, sections of the regulation that

pertained to speed monitoring,

certification requirements and

compliance standards were deleted from

the regulation because they were no

longer applicable to any State. This

removed the information collection

requirement for all States at that time.

The expiration of the 60-day period

has now occurred for all States. Since

Part 1260 no longer applies to any State,

the regulation is being rescinded in its

entirety.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Civil Justice Reform

This final rule will not have any

preemptive or retroactive effect. It

imposes no requirements on the States,

but rather removes regulatory

obligations that are no longer authorized

by statute.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The agencies have analyzed the effect

of this action and determined that it is

not significant within the meaning of

Executive Order 12866 or of Department

of Transportation regulatory policies

and procedures. This final rule imposes

no additional burden on the public.

Regulatory obligations have been

removed since they are no longer

authorized by statute. Therefore, a

regulatory evaluation is not required

and was not prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, the agencies have

evaluated the effects of this action on
3812 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 17 /Tuesday, January 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

small entities. Based on the evaluation,

we certify that this action will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, the preparation of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is

unnecessary.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) had approved the information

collection requirements associated with

23 CFR part 1260 (OMB Clearance No.

2125–0027). By rescinding all of part

1260, the information collection

requirement, as that term is defined by

OMB in 5 CFR part 1320, remains at

zero.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agencies have analyzed this

action for the purpose of compliance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act and have determined that it will not

have a significant effect on the human

environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612. There are no federalism

implications pursuant to Executive

Order 12612 since regulatory obligations

are being rescinded because they are no

longer authorized under current law.

Under these circumstances, the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment

is not warranted.

Notice and Comment

The agencies find that prior notice

and opportunity for comment are

unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)

because the agencies are not exercising

discretion in a way that could be

meaningfully affected by public

comment. Instead, this rescission of the

agencies’ speed limit compliance

regulations is mandated by Section

205(d) of the NHS Act. Therefore, notice

and opportunity for comment are not

required under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation.

In addition, good cause exists to

dispense with the 30-day delayed

effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C.

553(d) because this final rule ‘‘grants or

recognizes an exemption or relieves a

restriction’’ in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1). In repealing the NMSL

regulation for all States, all Federal

speed limit provisions are terminated.

Consequently, the agencies are

proceeding directly to a final rule which

is effective upon its date of publication.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1260

Grant programs—transportation,

Highway and roads, Motor vehicles,

Traffic regulations.

In consideration of the foregoing, Part

1260 of Title 23, Code of Federal

Regulations, is removed.

Issued on: January 12, 1998.

Kenneth R. Wykle,

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–1888 Filed 1–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8759]

RIN 1545–AP36

Filing Requirements for Returns

Claiming the Foreign Tax Credit

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Final Regulation.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

final regulation relating to the

substantiation requirements for

taxpayers claiming foreign tax credits.

The regulation is necessary to provide

guidance to U.S. taxpayers who claim

foreign tax credits.

DATES: Effective date: This regulation is

effective January 27, 1998.

Applicability date: These regulations

are applicable for tax returns whose

original due date falls on or after

January 1, 1988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan

Thomsen, (202) 622–3850 (not a toll-free

call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 13, 1997, the IRS

published in the Federal Register a

notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–

208288–90), 62 FR 1700, relating to the

filing requirements for returns claiming

the foreign tax credit (the ‘‘proposed

regulation’’).

Written comments responding to the

proposed regulation were received. A

public hearing was requested and

scheduled but was later canceled when

the one requester withdrew the request

to testify. After consideration of all of

the written comments, the proposed

regulation under section 905(b) is

adopted as revised by this Treasury

Decision.

Summary of Comments and Final

Regulations

The commenters argued that the

‘‘interim credit’’ notion incorporated in

the proposed regulations from

Continental Illinois, T.C. Memo 1991–

66, 61 T.C.M. (CCH) 1916 (1991), aff’d

in part and rev’d in part, 998 F.2d 513,

516–17 (7th Cir. 1993), was misapplied

and that the proposed amendment to

§ 1.905–2(b)(3) denied district directors

the flexibility to find compliance with

section 905(b) unless the taxpayer

produces receipts (or other direct

evidence of payment) in order to prove

that the taxes actually were paid to the

foreign government. They argued that,

even if the district director should be

able to require such proof in cases such

as Continental Illinois, district directors

must have the flexibility to accept lesser

proof. They argued that a portfolio

holder of publicly-traded foreign

securities, for example, will not be able

to obtain proof in the form of receipts

evidencing that the issuer of the

securities actually paid the withheld

taxes to the foreign government.

The comment letters are correct that

the regulations historically have

allowed the district director flexibility

to determine that section 905(b) is

satisfied without the production of tax

receipts evidencing that the tax has been

paid to the foreign government.

Treasury and the IRS did not intend that

the amendment to § 1.905–2(b)(3), as

proposed, deny the district director the

flexibility to accept secondary evidence

of the foreign tax payment where it has

been established to the satisfaction of

the district director that it is impossible

to furnish a receipt for such foreign tax

payment. The amendment was merely

intended to clarify that proof of the act

of withholding through secondary

evidence is not, per se, equivalent to

proof of payment of the foreign tax.

Treasury and the IRS have now

concluded, however, that such

clarification is not necessary.

Continental Illinois v. Commissioner,

supra.

Therefore, in response to comments,

the proposed regulation is finalized

without its proposed amendment to

§ 1.905–2(b)(3). Thus, the final

regulations are identical to the final

regulations currently in effect, except

§ 1.905–2(a)(2) no longer requires a

foreign receipt or return to be attached

to a Form 1116 or Form 1118.

Treasury and the IRS will continue to

review the foreign tax credit

substantiation rules to assure that they

are functioning adequately. For